For you Libertarians who are
still willing to consider some views that may challenge your current paradigms,
please read on. I know it is painful, believe me I know. I don’t like to have
my deeply held convictions seriously challenged either. It causes me angst,
internal conflict, profound inner dissonance and yes even pain. But I do it
anyway. I have listened with an open ear to each of you, my Libertarian loved
ones. And I have changed my mind on several positions because of what you have
persuaded me. I ask only, that you open yourselves to the same inner discomfort
and consider some things you may not know, or may not have reflected upon.
One common theme I hear from
every person who plans to vote, or is thinking about voting, Libertarian in the
next election is that the election of Mitt Romney would yield only a marginal
difference than would the election of Barak Obama.
Rest assured. A vote for Mitt Romney is in no way
shape or form, a vote for more of what we have now. There are huge differences between the two candidates
(Obama and Romney). So let’s consider the issues:
1. The
Federal Reserve Ron Paul wants to abolish the Fed. OK. Maybe this is the
right thing to do. But don’t think Mitt is full-board supportive of the Fed as
it functions now, because he is not. He specifically stated that he is
adamantly opposed to the Fed as it now functions. He even called the Fed and
begged them to not print more money (last week they did it anyway). He has
promised to fire Bernanke. True, he is
not an “abolish the Fed guy” but at least he is a “let’s not burn down the country” guy. This is more than a
marginal” difference.
2. Immigration Positions between Romney and Gary Johnson are not
identical, but they are not all that far apart either. Both oppose blanket
amnesty of illegal immigrants. Both favor secure borders, sanctions on
employers for non-compliance of current immigration laws and work visas. Most
importantly, both favor an orderly system of immigration which we do not
currently have.
3. Abortion Yes, Mitt Romney changed his mind (haven’t we all on
several occasions?) And he changed his mind while he was the Governor of Mass,
not while he was a candidate for something. Why did he initially believe
abortion should be legal (even though he thought it was immoral)? It was
because a close family member had died from an illegal abortion. For this
reason, he believed the procedure should be safe but legal. However, during his
tenure as Governor, he announced that his position had changed—an announcement
that roused the ire of countless Massachusettes constituents. In 2005, Romney
stated that he believes abortion should be decided by the States. From what I
understand, this is also the Libertarian position. Bottom line: Romney believes
an unborn child is a person, Obama has voted and continues to state his support
for late-term abortion. See the difference?
4. Judges Need I even address this? Romney will nominate judges
supportive of the original intent of the constitution. Obama will continue to
nominate revisionist judges.
5. Economy Is there any doubt that Romney will significantly improve
the job situation and the economy? For those of you who are put off by his
involvement in Bain, see the following link: http://business.mittromney.com/
6. Israel Romney believes that the United States is duty-bound to
defend the right of Israel to exist. Johnson also stated that he "support[s]
the right of Israel
to exist as a sovereign country and believes that the United States should protect that right militarily if needed.” We have the
power to help Israel, and we should do so. I agree with Gary Johnson. And in
this, both Romney and Johnson significantly differ from the current occupant of
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
For brevity’s sake, I am going to stop here—though I could go on for a
long time with the differences between Obama and Romney. But I know all of you
are deeply concerned about the growing use of the military throughout the
world. So am I. So let’s address that.
Gary Johnson proposes a decrease in military spending. Mitt Romney does
not. But it seems that Romney does not
expect to use the military to the aggressive extent it is used now. He stated
that he favors a “non-confrontational, peaceful” attitude in dealings with the Middle
East. I seriously doubt he would want to close all our bases around the world
as does the prevailing Libertarian position. But think for just a minute, how
very certain are we that this is beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt the right thing to
do? On its surface, it sounds good. But the Law of Unintended Consequences
could slap us upside the head in short order here.
So why doesn’t Romney want to cut the military budget? Perhaps because
he believes strongly that our nation should have the ability to defend itself in any situation. So do I.
Folks, the next four-years of Obama will be worse than the first four.
What do you think when he says “I’m going to get a little more latitude when
I’m elected the second time?” What do you think he’s going to do? Seriously,
what do you think the country looks like given 4-more years? Do really want to
be a part of a movement that could leave the country in the hands of its
current leader for another term? Suppose you wake up November 7th
and realize your vote contributed to a repeat of the last four years on steroids?
Can you honestly say you would be proud of such a vote? Could you really call
such a vote one of Principle?
